🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CquqA0.4pn@ibeam.intel.com> knauer@ibeam.intel.com (Rob Knauerhase) writes:
>In <2socgv$2h0@network.ucsd.edu> triley@weber.ucsd.edu (Tristan Riley) writes:
>>In article <1994Jun3.133306.13118@zygot.ati.com> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
>>>Do we actually want Joe in the Slammer's drivel adding to the noise
>>>level on the net? It is not just a matter of cost, but a matter of
>>>overall value of the traffic.
>>
>>I find it only remotely possible that what "Joe in the Slammer"
>>might have to offer in the way of items for useful discussion would
>>be even the least bit more "noisy" than the material the numerous
>>"Joes/Janes in their first year of college" contribute at present.  What
>
>Just for "devil's advocate" sake, let me take the elitist position here.
>College freshman, for all their faults, have at least completed high school.
>They have also gained admission to a college, demonstrating at least some
>drive and some level of ability. 

I fail to see how the completion of high school and gaining
admission to college is some accurate measure of "drive and level of
ability".  What you are in fact saying here (I think) is you (or at
least the caricature elitist position you are painting) are
interested in using the internet to help perpetuate existing forms
of cultural reproduction and class/ethnic/gender inequity--anyone
with the proper pedigree and the proper history of behavior gets
access to this medium, those who in various ways and degrees have
been most deprived of the resources needed to gain both pedigree and
history of properly docile and conforming behavior will be denied
*this* resource as well.  I don't know how you propose to measure
"drive and level of ability", but I think I might speak for a moment
as someone who has been employed as an instructor of both
ex-prisoners and first year college students and emphatically say
that if the average first year college student had to compete with
the average ex-prisoner for positions in the academy at the level of 
"drive", many first year college students would be finding other things to 
do with their time.  "Level of ability" of course in the manner in
which it is usually defined by evaluators and those who otherwise
want to separate 'smart' people from 'dumb' ones has more to do with
what sorts of training programs you've had the privilege (or
misfortune) to be exposed to and whether or not the skills taught in
those programs are valued by those who control resources than with
anything intrinsic to an individual or a specific set of skills.  As
long as "level of ability" is defined as "having completed the
training program (high school) we've decided is the measure of
intelligence (without regard to any other cultural and social
issues)" then certainly first year college students will by
definition have higher "levels of ability" than those who have for
myriad reasons not been able to adequately subject themselves to
this particular training program.  If however "level of ability"
becomes some variable other than "presence or absence of a little
piece of paper reading DIPLOMA" or "ability to spell many words
correctly most of the time and do a little bit of geometry"--perhaps
"knowledge of 'the real world'"--the contest again changes
significantly.
 
 
> Carrying forward the elitist argument for the moment, I think even the
>most broad-minded net.oldies yearn for the good ol' days when the net was
>populated by graduate students in CS and people at high-tech companies.

And in these "good ol' days" what were the important and very
intelligent things getting done on the net?  Lots of trading of
software and talk about programming, perhaps?  This is again a very
specific claim about the purpose of the net which is not being
argued for, but simply assumed.  I for one would be quite
uninterested in what almost all of these "net.oldies" have to say
about nearly everything--the difference seems to be that I'm
not interested in removing them from the medium altogether, while
this elitist position wants very much to keep off everyone who
doesn't meet very suspect requirements for 'membership'.

>My personal feeling is that adding people to the net isn't so bad since the
>stupid ones (be they from a university or a prison) will naturally gravitate
>toward alt.* and leave comp.* alone.  And the stupid ones who like comp.*
>will tend toward the *.advocacy groups, leaving the technical meat to the
>people who generate/consume it. 

Again here a purpose for the net is being assumed without a shred of
argument as to *why* this is the case.  

 The biggest purpose of the alt hierarchy
>these days is to act as a 'bozo drain' for the rest of the net.

Actually there are quite a number of "bozos" everywhere, including
on your beloved comp hierarchy.  Again the issue of difference here
is the tech elite (or the variation of it you're presenting here)
seemingly wants to chop off everyone who isn't just like them.

>>Most importantly, I think, who is the "we" you speak of in your
>>first sentence above?
>
>It's obviously those who are partaking in this thread.  Taken broadly,
>it would probably be "society in general."

I see.  And so "society in general" to you consists of college
students, graduate students and other people in the academy?  That
is, "Joe in the Slammer" doesn't fit, nor does anyone else who
hasn't met the training requirements you set out at the beginning?

Tristan